News Release
Ceasefire Campaign
17th May 2012
Ceasefire Campaign calls for reconsideration of the Defence Review
Draft report a recipe for the militarisation of South Africa’s democracy
On 27th April the Defence Review Committee appointed by the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans published its draft report. That report is available at www.sadefencereview2012.org. On 14th May the Ceasefire Campaign made a submission to the Committee, criticising the draft report. click to download Defence Review 2012 Submission Ceasefire 2012.05.11 pdf
The presuppositions, the language and the proposals of the draft report are egregiously militarist. In particular, the proposals regarding the centralisation of power in the Ministry of Defence, the massive new arms purchase programme, the expansion of arms manufacturing capacity, and the insidious militarisation both of non-military functions and of the youth of South Africa signals a fundamental departure from our hard-won democratic state towards a military state and it opens the door to extensive corruption.
During the apartheid regime, the state made decisions for all South Africans under the assumption that they knew what was best for all and should not be questioned on policy or decisions. In the new South Africa this has changed. The people need to be able to engage with the state on matters of policy. The military jargon and technical language of the draft report makes it inaccessible to the majority.
Though the draft report pays lip-service to human-security priorities and the interests of the people, the lack of any critical review of the SANDF, the NCACC, Armscor and Denel suggests that the Committee perceives itself as the agent of the Ministry of Defence and Military Defence in particular and the interests of the arms–industrial complex in general, not as a body charged with upholding the interests of the people of South Africa. This impression is exacerbated by its regurgitation of uncritical and ill-founded statements about the strategic and economic value of the arms industry in general and Denel in particular, and by its selective reading of the Constitution, of threats to the security of the nation and of history.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
May 11 2012 The star
by OMPHITLHETSE MOOKI
THE Protection of State Information Bill could render the arms deal commission toothless, sabotaging attempts to unearth the truth behind the R70 billion arms contracts.
In gazetted calls for written submissions, commissioners assured anonymity of those who would provide “confidential, classified or secret” material, saying such persons could elect to use fake initials to protect their identities.
The final report to be submitted to President Jacob Zuma would have the same initials used in all records, transcripts or the hearing and any reports of the commission.
But should the government decide to go ahead and pass the Protection of State Information Bill on May 17 – commissioners will face a difficult task of gathering information that could lift a veil on the controversial arms contracts. They could themselves face jail should they obtain classified information and conceal identities of those who divulged such information.
According to the bill, which has unsettled even Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, a person who “unlawfully communicate(s), deliver(s) or make(s) available State information classified top secret”, knowing that such information would “directly or indirectly prejudice the state”, could be sentenced to up to 15 years in jail.
|
|
Read more...
|
21 February | The Star
President Jacob Zuma could keep the arms deal inquiry’s final report secret, and the inquiry chairman could restrict information access.
The inquiry regulations which Zuma signed into law this month don’t close the inquiry to the public but do make restrictions possible.
The inquiry hasn’t started, although the two-year clock started ticking when the terms of reference were gazetted in November.
The regulations are in terms of the Commissions Act of 1947, which orders that evidence be heard in public unless the chairman decides otherwise.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
The Editor
Business Day
Johannesburg
Sir
It is disappointing that the South African media focused on the error made by our deputy foreign minister concerning our oil imports from Iran rather than on the more pertinent issue: our need to kow-tow to US demands that we abide by its calls for sanctions against Iran. (“Ebrahim gets it wrong on SA’s oil imports from Iran,” BD, 23 March 2012)
We should resist US pressures to abide by oil sanctions on two grounds. Firstly, all the US intelligence agencies have on several occasions reported to the White House that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. On Sunday, 25 March 2012, the New York Times reported that Mossad and the CIA (the Israeli and US intelligence agencies respectively) both agree that that Iran has yet to decide on whether to build a nuclear weapon.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Published:2012/02/10 08:36:06 A Business Day
|
I refer to the well-considered article by , ( How state-owned companies can better serve SA’s needs, February 7 ).
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=164287
While in general this framework serves well as a basis for policy regarding state-owned enterprises, one such enterprise stands out like a sore thumb. Here I refer to Denel.
The reason for state ownership of Denel is not that it is critical in terms of our economic and social development. It isn’t. Denel’s assets amount to more than R1m per employee. To bolster economic and social development we should be using our assets in labour-intensive industry, not in capitalintensive industry.
The reason for state ownership of Denel is not that it is a state asset. It isn’t. It’s a state liability. Last year Denel pulled the wool over Parliament’s eyes by pretending that it had made a profit. It hadn’t. It had made an operating loss of R314m. The only way in which it could turn that into a "profit" was by transferring money from the Denel pension fund. We continue to subsidise Denel’s losses from taxpayers’ money.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 8 |
